The ulster rugby trial

[AZOffaly]

If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  )

Stockdale was hardly involved in a 'Munster threesome'.

By the way, there's a big difference between a threesome and a gang rape..

Thats for the jury to decide i think

No it isn't. There is a difference between a rape and a consensual threesome. What the jury has to decide is in which category this particular incident lies.

[Hound]

Going by the twitter accounts of the judge's comments (which is quite unrealiable!), my take is that the judge seems to be trying to persuade the jury that everything hinges on one piece of the puzzle - the complainant's inconsistent story to the doctor who examined her at the trial:

- If the jury think she deliberately lied to the doctor, then they should find them Not Guilty

- If the jury think the inconsistencies were down to trauma/confusion, then find them Guilty

Though, as I say twitter summaries are definitely unreliable as they leave loads out.

[Milltown Row2]

If people think the "Top Shagger" stuff doesn't also go on in Leinster and Munster, they'd be very naive. Probably Ireland's best player in the 6N was involved in a Munster 3some that was very high profile on social media. BOD was supposed to be quite the playboy before he settled down. Lots of stories about other players too. Money, youth, fame and some of them even have looks, "Top shaggers", one night stands and after-boasting must be absolutely prolific

(I'd say even the Connacht lads get the odd score  )

Stockdale was hardly involved in a 'Munster threesome'.

By the way, there's a big difference between a threesome and a gang rape..

Thats for the jury to decide i think

No it isn't. There is a difference between a rape and a consensual threesome. What the jury has to decide is in which category this particular incident lies.

Of course,  the jury will decide on whether there will be guilty verdict or a not guilty verdict

[sid waddell]

I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.

I was surprised to read that Judge Smyth directed the jury that it is up to them "to decide if the woman had drunk so much that she did not the ability to consent".

I had assumed that this point was irrelevant to the charges, especially given the line being pushed by the defence that the complainant was "intoxicated".

Very curious.

[Milltown Row2]

I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.

I was surprised to read that Judge Smyth directed the jury that it is up to them "to decide if the woman had drunk so much that she did not the ability to consent".

I had assumed that this point was irrelevant to the charges, especially given the line being pushed by the defence that the complainant was "intoxicated".

Very curious.

How do the jury determine what amount of drink makes one person intoxicated? (give them the same amount and do a soberity test?)

and how would you know if thats all they drank.. Olding says he drank x amount but was he counting? Flip after 5 i struggle to count the amout taken unless its on my card and I'm only buying myself

[David McKeown]

I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.

I was surprised to read that Judge Smyth directed the jury that it is up to them "to decide if the woman had drunk so much that she did not the ability to consent".

I had assumed that this point was irrelevant to the charges, especially given the line being pushed by the defence that the complainant was "intoxicated".

Very curious.

I can answer this one. It's actually very well dealt with in the Ched Evans case. Drunken consent is still consent but a point can come when a person is too drunk to legally consent. If the jury think the girl was at that point then the issue of whether or not she consented is irrelevant and the only issue is did the defendants reasonably believe she was consenting. If the defendants knew she was at the stage of being unable to legally consent it's impossible their belief in her consent was reasonable (which is what lead to Evans conviction first time round but not his co-accused.

Whether a person is too drunk to consent is a matter of fact

[Hound]

I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.

I think she lied about Olding having vaginal sex with her. He was never behind her, and in her actual court testimony there was never any hint of it. Confusion as to whether it was one or two people who had vaginal sex with her just doesn't stack up, in my opinion. So I think she exaggerated to the doctor. That's just my opinion, based on incomplete twitter accounts, and fully accept that other people can have other opinions.

The surprise to me is that the judge has directed that such a lie to a doctor, not a policeman and before a police investigation had even started, matters so much as to render the whole case closed in the defendants' favour.

[Minder]

Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

[Hound]

Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

Do the defence and prosecution teams get to see those 3 questions I wonder?

[screenexile]

Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

Do the defence and prosecution teams get to see those 3 questions I wonder?

I wouldn't have thought so . . .

[brokencrossbar1]

Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

Do the defence and prosecution teams get to see those 3 questions I wonder?

I wouldn't have thought so . . .

Not at this stage but I would presume the judge will answer them in due course in open court, if she can. They may be prejudicial so she is probably going to reflect overnight.

[shezam]

Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

The jury came back to court to ask if

1) they can see/hear Rory Harrison's witness statement from June 30.

2) They want to know where is the evidence the woman accessed Uber on her phone.

Judge will answer in the morning. Jury is being sent home and will return tomorrow.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Jury are returning

Edit -

@FrankGreaney

Judge Smyth has returned to the courtroom. She tells the court she has been handed a list of three questions from the jurors. She is now sending them home for the night and asks them to return to court at 10am tomorrow to resume their deliberations.

Do the defence and prosecution teams get to see those 3 questions I wonder?

I wouldn't have thought so . . .

Not at this stage but I would presume the judge will answer them in due course in open court, if she can. They may be prejudicial so she is probably going to reflect overnight.

Could one of them be would she accept a majority verdict?

[Hound]

Can anyone come up with a theory as to why whether she accessed Uber on her phone is of any importance?

[gallsman]

I would venture that very few people think the complainant lied to Dr. Lavery.

I think she lied about Olding having vaginal sex with her. He was never behind her, and in her actual court testimony there was never any hint of it.

Ffs, the reason it wasn't brought up in court was because he's not facing that charge. You've hardly stumbled across the smoking you appear to think you have.